There are a variety of different communications devices known in the field, including both wireless or mobile devices and so called wire-line devices, that an end user or party may employ to communicate over known networks, e.g., a public switched telephone network (PSTN), packet data network (PDN), etc. Often referred to generally as an end user terminal (EUT), exemplary devices include telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), computers, pagers, etc. More specifically, an EUT that accesses a communications network over a wireless or so called air interface, e.g., using what is known as a cellular network (CN), is referred to as a mobile terminal (MT). Known MTs include mobile phones, pagers, wireless PDAs, wireless equipped laptop or notebook computers, etc.
In many instances, an EUT is provisioned with its own alerting function and/or equipment that provides a perceivable indication (e.g., ringing, vibrating, visual notification, etc.) of an incoming communication or attempted connection therewith. The EUT generally invokes its alerting function in response to receiving an appropriate signal over a communication network attempting to establish a connection therewith. In this manner, the party to which the EUT belongs is typically informed of the incoming communication and may take appropriate action, e.g., answering the call. However, it can be a problem that an end user initiating communication (i.e., the calling party) with another end user (i.e., the called party) is not sufficiently assured that the called party's EUT adequately performed its alerting function such that the called party was in fact informed of the call or attempted connection.
The aforementioned problem has heretofore been particularly prevalent in connection with calls to MTs. For example, the following scenario has been known to take place. A calling party calls the MT of a called party who fails to answer the call. After the fact, the calling party questions the called party as to why they did not answer the call, but the called party claims that they never received the call, i.e., that their MT never rang or otherwise invoked its alerting function. In such instances, the calling party may often find it desirable to have evidence or information by which to verify or refute the called parties claim.
As evidence that a called EUT rang, the calling party may want to rely on the fact that they heard “ringing” on their end, i.e., on the calling EUT. However, this evidence is often inconclusive in this regard. The “ringing” heard on the EUT from which a call is placed is commonly what is referred to as ring-back. Strictly speaking, hearing ring-back is not always conclusive evidence that the called EUT in fact alerted the called party. That is to say, the ring-back returned to the calling EUT is generally not the same ringing being generated by the called EUT. For example, in some instances, a network element, entity or facility (such as a central office (CO) or end office or other switching center, the called-party servicing switch or the calling-party switch or other switch, a mobile switching center (MSC) or another element, entity or facility of the communications network) is responsible for generating and/or returning ring-back to the calling EUT, and it may be done without direct confirmation that the called EUT is in fact alerting.
For example, with respect to connecting a call to a MT, the call generally has to be routed through the PSTN to an appropriate MSC, the MT typically has to be identified, located and paged, a response to the page has to be received back from the MT, and an appropriate signal has to be sent to the MT telling it to invoke its alerting function, all before the MT can actually invoke its alerting function. That is to say, there may be considerable lag time between when the calling party finishes dialing and when the MT is signaled to invoke its alerting function. However, to comfort the calling party so that they do not feel as though the call is not going through (as may be the case if they were to experience dead air or silence), a designated network element often returns ring-back or other comfort noise to the calling EUT during this time, i.e., while the call is still being routed and/or while attempting to establish a connection with the MT. Should no connection ultimately be established for what ever reason or should the calling party hang up prior to connecting, the calling party may interpret the ring-back as evidence that the MT was alerting when in fact it was not.
With the traditional approach of providing ring-back from a network element to the calling EUT, the ring-back still may not positively confirm actual alerting even if the called EUT receives the signal prompting it to invoke its alerting function and it attempts to do so. That is to say, the network element providing the ring-back often times only knows at most that the appropriate signal was sent or is being sent to prompt the called EUT to invoke its alerting function. However, it may not know if the prompting signal is properly received by the called EUT nor does it typically know if the called EUT has its alerting function and/or equipment turned off or disabled or if the alerting function and/or equipment is otherwise inoperative, e.g., due to failure. Further, EUTs, and in particular MTs, often have various modes by which alerting may be carried out, and the calling party may desire to know not only whether or not the called EUT has actually performed some form of alerting, but also the mode of any alerting that may or may not have occurred, e.g., via audible, kinetic, or visual notification. Again, the traditional approach does not provide this information.
The present invention contemplates a new and improved alert indicating system and/or technique that overcomes the above-referenced problems and others.